leagueoflegendsfandomcom-20200222-history
League of Legends Wiki:Request for Bureaucrat/Technology Wizard 2
I have decided to pursue bureaucrat rights here on the wiki. I feel as if I have greatly impacted the wiki by promoting new ideas and starting many projects. I always help out an editor in need whether it's user page help or teaching them editing skills. I have dedicated much time to the wiki and have improved it to my full extent. Many users have come to me for guidance and I always direct them to the right path. I think that becoming a bureaucrat on the wiki will allow me to help out the current active bureaucrats when it comes to closing requests or keeping track of inactive users. I am very honest and trustworthy as well. I would like to know if the community agrees that I can be the promising bureaucrat that I pursue to be. Support :6 users have over 50 mainspace edits, remainder have less. 04:13, February 6, 2012 (UTC) # I trust him. He's helped me out, and he's shown he can help dozens of others even more than he does now. Also, hey guys, I'm back :3 21:53, January 26, 2012 (UTC) # Tech is a very active Admin on the wiki, and a overall nice guy. I've seen him help people alot too, thus I'd say he'd make a good choice for a crat. -- I Am Knowledge イレリア ♥ アカリ 05:53, January 27, 2012 (UTC) # I Support Tech, he's active every day and he does alot of things around here and comes up with alot of ideas to encourage people to help around here. :) Dah' Blob 07:00, January 27, 2012 (UTC) # He's fairly active, truthful and seems like a good guy. He's helpful and I really don't see a reason not to allow him more power to help out Anon8792 22:16, January 27, 2012 (UTC) # Bakedcookies 00:19, January 28, 2012 (UTC) # Tech is probably one of the single-most active members of the wiki and it's community, and one of the most devoted members we have. I think the position of bureaucrat is a natural place for him at the moment, and I fully support him in this endeavor. Constantly Confuddled Sth 00:52, January 28, 2012 (UTC) # I share most of the concerns about there being too many bureaucrats on this wiki, but in my eyes, tech has been here for a long time, and has shown maturity over his past mistakes, as well as playing a great part in keeping the important parts of the wiki constantly updated. I'd say let him have it, as an honorary badge for his efforts. He's earned this much, and i want to see how he handles himself faced with new responsibility. Rapacious 01:10, January 28, 2012 (UTC) # i feel although that Tech has been involved in a lot of drama that it has been way in the past, i feel as though he has matured greatly. From my point of view he has done nothing but better the site for the wiki community and is always helpfull to new editors. I fully support this nomination. 02:42, January 28, 2012 (UTC) # I've only been an actual member of the wiki for 2 weeks but I can say that Tech is both active and friendly to newcommers like I. He seems like a person that would greatly represent the wiki. DæmonicTrilogy 04:11, January 28, 2012 (UTC) # He's very helpful around the wiki, so i'm sure he's worth the nomination.Ice Nymph 07:40, January 28, 2012 (UTC)Ice Nymph # He dedicates himself to this Wiki and it's apparent. He's always active and contributes a lot. The community really appreciates his contributions. 17:53, January 28, 2012 (UTC) # He's a very nice guy and is doing a great job to the wiki. The community is glad to have his help. FrozenDarkness 14:13 January 28, 2012 (EST) # I think that Tech is ambitious, more mature and has positive intentions when it comes to work ethic and he is also active. We do have 4 other 'Crats, but (Please tell me if I am wrong) Neon is the only one who is active, while Kaz, Sam and Ajr seem less active now. I think that by having another active 'Crat, it would be beneficial to the wiki. Zaroph 22:18, January 28, 2012 (UTC) # First and foremost, the reason why I'm supporting Tech for this right is because he deserves it. He cares about the Wiki, and he always volunteers to help the community whenever possible. Plus, Tech could be considered active, and what this wiki needs isn't a sufficient amount of Crats; in fact, this Wiki could have so many Crats, it would be better if all of the Crats are active and responsible. In my opinion, Tech fits the bill. Another addition of a useful and active Crat won't hurt, of course. Also, From what I understand, he had previous qualms with someone from the Wiki before; what I'm trying to say is, he must be judged based in his current contributions, not his past problems. He definitely has my vote, and only because he deserves it and none other. RainbowEuphoria 22:59, January 28, 2012 (UTC) # He does edit, he is helpful, and I don't see what big mess he could cause as a bur that he couldn't cause as an admin. 05:51, January 29, 2012 (UTC) # Well the silent sentinel does do a hard days work so I guess its alright for him to get a buff. WhiteArcher 03:58, January 31, 2012 (UTC)WhiteArcher # Always in chat. Always around to help. So much dedication to the wiki. I strongly urge others to vote the same.HeroGaming 06:29, February 3, 2012 (UTC) # He's around a lot, is extremely helpful and seems like a nice guy. Active on the wiki, dedicated, etc... There is so much support for him I don't know what to say! If so many people are with me on this, why not just give him the title already? :D User:Baam25th # He helped me out quite a bit when I was just starting out on the wiki, and he's very active as far as I can tell. I think he's very deserving of this promotion. # He is nice and organized. He has a lot of edits and he is very implicated in the wiki. ooups [[User_talk:Ooups2142|'AwSa']] 04:15, February 6, 2012 (UTC) : He does help out a lot on the wiki. so i guess he can use the rights. Bloodstrider 16:05, January 26, 2012 (UTC)Bloodstrider. : Neutral # Tech's a good guy, but four bureaucrats is already plenty for the wiki (even though they're not that active). There's no real purpose to go from admin to BC, right-wise. That is all. 23:16, January 26, 2012 (UTC) # Contribution is enough. My concern would be of something else, which I prefer to keep it down. [[User:Lesanthosxia|'Leia - 零亜のレサンテョスイア']] [[User talk:Lesanthosxia|'™']] 13:26, January 29, 2012 (UTC) # From what I understand, BCs need to be firm in their decisions when it comes to user right promotions and demotions. Haven't seen enough decisiveness from Tech when it comes to meting out punishments involving rights holders. LionsLight 04:12, January 28, 2012 (UTC) # It's like Teh said. We have enough Bureaucrats already,so another one isn't needed. Bloodstrider 09:39, January 28, 2012 (UTC)Bloodstrider # I don't personally know of how Tech's attitude is like to others, or how firm his decisions are, but do feel that some people need to consider that some people change, and that when they do one thing it doesn't instantly mean that person is forever wrong. I'm deciding neutral on this particular decision. Volibear :D 03:59, January 31, 2012 (UTC) : ^ 23:26, January 26, 2012 (UTC) Oppose : All opposers have at least 50 mainspace edits. 02:56, February 6, 2012 (UTC) #'Oppose', not really sure if I'm comfortable with this, or if its needed. 16:40, January 27, 2012 (UTC) # I feel as though Teh summarized a lot of what I feel. Even just one active 'crat is enough for this wiki, to be honest. The tools that 'crat offers, in my opinion, would be of no real benefit for you. Off the top of my head one of the biggest things is nominations, which I will admit I've been drifting away from (mainly due to Aj being around), but if the need for a 'crat's presence in them is high I will have no difficulty being more hands on regarding regulating and closing them. The other "big" thing is deleterevision, which does not see all that much use on this wiki (although I feel some of our female champions+Taric could use it due to the type of vandalism that occurs on those pages). 20:33, January 27, 2012 (UTC) # Oppose I am opposed to promoting anyone to a position that does not need to be filled. There isn't a vacancy, there is no need to fill it whether a person deserves it or not. You don't promote someone to VP just because they deserve it, you need to have a VP position available to promote them to. Asperon Thorn 07:58, January 28, 2012 (UTC) # You can stop asking me to support you. I'm not your friend, and won't back you in everything you do. Besides, like mentioned many times before, I don't see how you could need anything that you don't already have. There is no real need for a new crat. Kitty (^_~) 06:41, January 29, 2012 (UTC) # Crat isn't an "Extra power thing", it isn't something that you can progress into through activity (much like today's mods). One crat is enough, four is pushing it, five is overkill. Tech, you do fine as an admin. Becoming crat doesn't gain anything for anyone. Promoting people is not a big deal: Aj and Neon are always there to promote. Crats don't even need to be active: They can just check in once a month or something and promote whoever needs it. More power is useless. # , As there is no vacancy in the bureaucrat positions. And what fears me the most is when you became a crat, You randomly turns everyone who you see fit as a rollback or chatmod into one, Despite their lack of using the rights. 12:05, February 2, 2012 (UTC) # too much canvassing, primarily. Comments *To expand on my oppose, my main issues come with his "rivalry" with some of the other admins (one of which left primarily due to his treatment). That kind of interaction between users isn't really what I want in a bureaucrat, who should be able to put his or her feelings aside to close RfAs, etc. 00:03, January 28, 2012 (UTC) ** I wouldn't decide whether to give someone rights or not just because I may not particularly agree with them. I would just be there to close them or leave them open for the appropriate times. After analyzing how some of the RfPs have been left open or closed, I'd say I would be able to do the same without being biased in any way. *Just saying, most of the people on the support list barely contribute. 00:29, January 28, 2012 (UTC) **Depends on your definition of contribute. I don't edit since I'm paranoid and feel I would accidently mess things up or edit things that don't need editing while I have(rarely, but still) contributed idea's and the occasional number crunch as I'm sure some others have(I remember figuring out the "max duration" numbers for Shyvana's ult and doing some simple tests to see the effects of her ult'd Q mixing with Tiamats, but I wasn't the person to edit those on the wiki) Anon8792 01:00, January 28, 2012 (UTC) ***His point is that many of the people voting here aren't really active on the wiki. How did you find out about this request? 01:07, January 28, 2012 (UTC) ****I posted the link in chat. I don't see any harm. *****Posting a link like that is canvassing. Do those people, who aren't active on the actual wiki part of this site even know the technical difference between a bureaucrat and an admin? Undiscriminating advertising to people via a link on the community corner is one thing, but actively advertising your request to a group of people who really aren't affected by it is another. How many times did you post the link? 01:12, January 28, 2012 (UTC) ******I posted the link to whoever asked for it. I don't exactly have the number. I told a few users about the nomination, in which the link you provided says that it is ok. *******I understand the difference between Bure and Admin, the major difference being the Bure's get to choose people for positions such as this. I've helped around Wiki's before so I understand most of these things and probably would have found this on my own without his link. I'm just not big on editing since I feel I'll just mess things up somehow. Anon8792 01:27, January 28, 2012 (UTC) ***Not trying to be personal about this, but EpicNoob, IAK, Anon8792, and Bakedcookies are mostly on the wiki for chat - they have <50 mainspace edits between them. Though they may have good intentions, their contributions are minimal. 03:10, January 28, 2012 (UTC) ****On top of those specific members, the majority of the support votes come from people with an extremely scant amount of mainspace edits, or really anything that isn't a comment. 03:18, January 29, 2012 (UTC) *Regarding RainbowEuphoria's "he must be judged based in his current contributions, not his past problems" bit, I just want to say that when this negative behavior has been a reoccurring thing in Tech's history it's pretty hard to ignore it. 03:09, January 29, 2012 (UTC) **I don't recall any recent negative or poisonous behavior on my part, therefore, I don't see how it's repetitive. *** Data are forever 04:08, January 29, 2012 (UTC) ****I said "recent" and that forum hasn't been edited in 146 days. *7toony's point, I feel, is taken care of by my opposition vote (and a couple other neutral/oppose votes), yes he has dedication, yes he contributes a lot, but I do not feel as though these extra rights would benefit his contributions. 03:18, January 29, 2012 (UTC) *:Correct. Bureaucrat rights do not "benefit" anyone, because the rights are no more than sysop except for one, rarely-used area of the wiki. 03:28, January 29, 2012 (UTC) *::I agree that bureaucrats don't differ too much from sysop, but where was this brought up during other bureaucrat nominations? Also, we should limit the amount of user rights being granted to users just because we have "too many", in my opinion. *:::It wasn't brought up in mine because we didn't have any active 'crats at the time, this time around we have 2. 18:00, January 29, 2012 (UTC) *::::Yes, which is why I decided to nominate you out of the other administrators. I am mostly talking about Aj's and Nystus' nominations. *:::::Nystus's nomination obviously was not going to pass, Aj's came before mine (which means he filled the gap left by Kaz), and my nomination came after Sam started to go semi-inactive due to medical and whatnot reasons. 21:53, January 30, 2012 (UTC) *@Rapacious, rights are not given out as honorary badges, especially at the level he is aiming for. His contributions have gotten him his current position, which is, imo, all he needs for what he does. 03:18, January 29, 2012 (UTC) * Just a small trivia for you, Tech. You make way too many powerful enemies than allies in the past. 12:15, February 2, 2012 (UTC) * "I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past." - Thomas Jefferson :"Why worry about the past when you can construct a better future?" ::So murderers shouldn't be given jail time? Obviously your past mistakes aren't jail-able offences, but still. 23:40, February 2, 2012 (UTC) :::There is a difference between punishments and privileges. I have served my punishment, I seek a privilege. Please read this since vacancy has nothing to do with the amount of users with rights we have. :I don't think that's what he meant. ._. ::Yea... I'm lost. 04:09, February 3, 2012 (UTC) :::The link is to the people who think that we have "too many" or "too little" amount of user rights. ::::The key part of my response is "if you feel as though we're lacking in the moderation area." Since it was in regards to moderators I used the word moderation, but that word could easily be replaced with bureaucratic. I feel as though we are not currently lacking in that area, as I'm sure do the people who said that we have "too many." With rights it isn't a set number of users that can have those rights, it's how many users does it take to get the job done consistently which is why we usually have more users with rights than we actually need because it forms a safety net of some sorts in the case one or a number of those users with rights happen to go inactive or just aren't around. The thing with 'crats that makes it different than every other level of rights, in my eyes, is that the things 'crats do exclusively will never be something that needs to happen right now, not having a 'crat online for a day is next to nothing compared to not having a moderator/admin online for a day and this is why I feel as though having 2 active 'crats is enough. I've been on this wiki nearly every day (I missed a couple, I think) over the past year+ and I don't plan on changing that any time soon and even if I'm not on we always have Aj around (for the most part) to fall back on. 21:59, February 3, 2012 (UTC) :::::Yes I agree with you, but it's not that reason why I pursue these rights. Yes, I feel as though I am one of the most active members here on the wiki, but even if you or Aj were here on a daily basis, that doesn't solve the issue that I have recently recognized. You guys are both great members and crats, don't get me wrong, but I don't feel like you guys are performing the job as desired. I am always messaging one of you to remind you about inactive users. Yes promotions are something you guys are here for, but I feel as if inactive users with rights are something you guys aren't paying much attention to, imo. ::::::Mainly because nobody should be paying attention to that. I strongly maintain that we have better things to do than go through the list of admins and mods once a day to see if anyone is in need of demotion. Deflagging inactive users is such a minor concern, we don't need a whole other bureaucrat to do that. Did we even vote on the rule to remove the bit from inactive users? 00:28, February 4, 2012 (UTC) ::::::perhaps it's just me, but I don't think removing inactive people's rights is something incredibly important. :::::::It's not that important, but it's part of the responsibility that comes with what a bureaucrat does (managing rights). Becoming bureaucrat isn't just about "going inactive and receiving an email to come back and promote someone" it's about being an influence to the community, managing rights, and regulating things before they get out of hand. ::::::::I AM here daily, and we don't always have inactive users so you're not "always" messaging one of us about them. It isn't like having an inactive user who still has rights is negatively impacting the wiki, it's not nearly as big of a deal as you are making it out to be. Also, that's 1 thing that only shows up once in a great while and it's the reason we have things like talk pages and forums, so that users without the rights can raise awareness to those with rights of things that those users with rights have overlooked or just haven't seen. As Aj said "Deflagging inactive users is such a minor concern, we don't need a whole other bureaucrat to do that." All users with rights, imo, have the first responsibility you listed, the second one doesn't even happen, and the third is being done, having 2-3 inactive users who still have their rights isn't "things getting out of hand." 00:46, February 4, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::That's not what I meant by "getting out of hand". I have more than one reason to pursue these rights as you can see on my nomination message, I don't see what else you want me to say. ::::::::::The only thing I see in your message is "allow me to help out the current active bureaucrats when it comes to closing requests or keeping track of inactive users." One of which we covered, the other I already covered in my oppose vote. Trust me Tech, if we had a position like "Bureaucratic Assistant" you'd be the first one on my list to get it, but we don't because there's no point. What you do and what you can do as an Admin is enough. 03:25, February 6, 2012 (UTC) * The "activeness" of a crat is?? I mean how active does a crat have to be i mean i know Neon is active but not as much as Tech is so right now i want an answer to my question above. LoLisNumbaWan 05:21, February 3, 2012 (UTC) So, there is currently 76% support to promote here. However, of the 19 supporters, only 7 have more than 50 mainspace edits. Also considering the large misconceptions of what a bureaucrat is, it is pretty clear that most of the supporters aren't very qualified to speak on this request. Tech has admitted to canvassing this request on chat, and I would say that this request demonstrates why that shouldn't be done. People are coming in here who don't contribute to the wiki and who don't know what they are even voting for. That being said, I am not going to close this since I am opposing. I will try to get in contact with Sam or Kaz and let them decide. 02:58, February 6, 2012 (UTC) :What? I never said I canvassed, I said that I mentioned my nomination in chat. Canvass would mean that I went and commanded people to vote on either side, which I didn't. Also, I would suggest asking them if they know what buraucrat includes rather than making assumptions. ::Aj provided a link for a reason. "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Giving the link to people with next to no actual experience on our wiki doesn't improve the quality of this discussion. 03:25, February 6, 2012 (UTC) :::And how do we know if they got the link from me or whether they just read the CM? Here is a quote from Aj on skype "just make sure you don't bring in personal opinions to closing things". Is this for real, because he is definitely bringing personal opinions when it comes to closing this. :There's a difference between notifying editors on the wiki of discussions going on, and advertising it to people on chat who don't edit the wiki and who aren't effected by this vote. The fact that you did canvass means that we will never know who came here from chat ads and who came from CN. Lastly, if you would be good enough to re-read my statement, I'm not closing this. I would never close something that I had strong feelings on one way or the other. 03:34, February 6, 2012 (UTC) ::Well I didn't canvass, even if you try bending the meaning of it. And I quoted your skype quote since you're doing the exact same thing not to do if I was granted bureaucrat. :::...I'm not bending the meaning of it. If I went onto some random LoL chat and advertised that request it would be canvassing - same thing with the wiki's chat. I am also not doing what I warned you not to. I would never close this request as I am involved in it, and I would not get involved in a request I was going to close. 03:55, February 6, 2012 (UTC) Okay. I've been less vocal about this, but seriously? #20 support is "Ooups2142". This is his only contribution on this wiki. He doesn't even have a single comment to his name. Please tell me that his vote does not count as much as one of our crats/admins/mods/rbe's/casual editors. 04:09, February 6, 2012 (UTC) Closing Statement * Category:Active rights requests